• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who will be making Fallout 4, Bethesda or Obsidian?

T

TimberSaw

Junior Member
I read that Obsidian recently put a notice out for a job listing. This was to make a next gen game, and Product-Reviews said that the game may be Fallout 4.
I'm not quite 100% sure who is making the game.
 
Hopefully Bethesda.
Obsidian is the most overrated untalented development team in existence, they live off the blind and loyal old fanbase who swallow any garbage that's thrown at them and call it brilliant.
Fallout 3 was in fact superior to New Vegas in every way imaginable (except maybe NV's iron sights).
 
Maximilian said:
idgaf as long as they ditch that ancient gamebryo engine, its had its time.
Click to expand...

I don't think they have a choice, didn't the creators of Gamebryo go bankrupt?


Err, em, they got bought out by another group and have continued to develop the engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo





grandos_tabetos said:
Fallout 3 was in fact superior to New Vegas in every way imaginable (except maybe NV's iron sights).
Click to expand...

picard-facepalm.jpg



No . . . just no. NV had a better story, characters, more interactive game world, etc. But its more important feature, the thing that really makes NV stand out as clearly superior to FO3? The fact that it was actually stable and could run on a 64bit OS without crashing. FO3, under Vista & 7 64, C2D so consistently it was basically unplayable.

Lets all hope that Bethesda Softworks gives Fallout 4 to Obsidian so we get a game worth playing.
 
Bateluer said:
picard-facepalm.jpg



No . . . just no. NV had a better story, characters, more interactive game world, etc. But its more important feature, the thing that really makes NV stand out as clearly superior to FO3? The fact that it was actually stable and could run on a 64bit OS without crashing. FO3, under Vista & 7 64, C2D so consistently it was basically unplayable.

Lets all hope that Bethesda Softworks gives Fallout 4 to Obsidian so we get a game worth playing.
Click to expand...
Here is a conversation I found that summarizes how fanboys of the original Fallouts think:

*Guy: Hey, did you know that Bethesda released a new Fallout? It's called Fallout: New Vegas.
*Fallout fanboy: OMG Fallout New Vegas sucks! The writing is so terrible! It's so linear! There's no open world anymore! And the quests are all the same, just go to A, kill X! Bethesda turned the best RPG in the world into a a crappy FPS! They ruined the entire Fallout universe! I couldn't stand playing New Vegas for more than 5 minutes, most boring casual game I've ever played! It's nothing like the original Fallouts!
*Guy: No dude, Bethesda only published it, the original Fallout developers at Obsidion are the ones who made it.
*Fallout fanboy: New Vegas is truly a homage to the originals! I finally feel like I'm playing Fallout again! The writing is brilliant and witty! It's so open world and you have so much freedom and choices! And the quests are so varied and addicting! It's a true RPG! Finally a relief from that abomination that Bethesda called Fallout3!

In short, all these people who were and are still praising New Vegas and hating on Fallout 3 were never making judgments based on the games themselves, but only based on who made them.
Their "criticism" of Fallout 3 has absolutely no merit, it is based on blatant lies. They already had preconceived opinions about it before it was ever released; the moment Bethesda announced it was developing it. They will simply go to any length to discredit the company that took Fallout away from their precious Black Isle Studios.

In fact head over to metacritic's user reviews of Fallout New Vegas, and you will see that most of the negative reviews are from people who think that Bethesda and not Obsidian made New Vegas. You will see comments like "I've lost all faith in Bethesda" and "Bethesda has done it again, now they've reached an all time low". It's almost funny.

Here are some facts: Fallout 3 had far more detail in the world and looked like it was years in the making, whereas New Vegas looked like they copy and pasted the same sand texture everywhere and finished it in a week. It's an empty desert where you'll find very little interesting stuff except a shack or army outpost here and there where different soldiers say the exact same lines of dialogue.
The game has endlessly empty and dull deserts that you wouldn't see in Fallout 3, and it made walking to locations a complete drag. But some idiots mistake a lack of content and laziness on behalf of the developers as "that's what a wasteland is supposed to be like".
And you could clearly tell the writers and the game designers never actually talked to each other, since there were ideas that were put in dialogue but not implemented. For example you talk to a bartender about hiring prostitutes and then find that the prostitutes don't exist.
The voice acting is absolutely horrible. Bethesda's wasn't that good either, but the voices in New Vegas sounded like there was no director.
And the writing, give me a break. In Fallout 3 there was a sense of mystery and suspense, you wanted to know where your father went and what's going on. In New Vegas it's a lame revenge story, a predictable plot, and an anti-climactic ending.
And as for:
the thing that really makes NV stand out as clearly superior to FO3? The fact that it was actually stable and could run on a 64bit OS without crashing. FO3, under Vista & 7 64, C2D so consistently it was basically unplayable.
It's universally agreed upon that New Vegas had far more bugs and glitches than Fallout 3, even among fans of Obsidian.
 
Last edited:
Wow, you're kinda all over the map here. Very rambling and disjointed. I'll try to translate it and set you straight. 🙂

grandos_tabetos said:
Here is a conversation I found that summarizes how fanboys of the original Fallouts think:

*Guy: Hey, did you know that Bethesda released a new Fallout? It's called Fallout: New Vegas.
*Fallout fanboy: OMG Fallout New Vegas sucks! The writing is so terrible! It's so linear! There's no open world anymore! And the quests are all the same, just go to A, kill X! Bethesda turned the best RPG in the world into a a crappy FPS! They ruined the entire Fallout universe! I couldn't stand playing New Vegas for more than 5 minutes, most boring casual game I've ever played! It's nothing like the original Fallouts!
*Guy: No dude, Bethesda only published it, the original Fallout developers at Obsidion are the ones who made it.
*Fallout fanboy: New Vegas is truly a homage to the originals! I finally feel like I'm playing Fallout again! The writing is brilliant and witty! It's so open world and you have so much freedom and choices! And the quests are so varied and addicting! It's a true RPG! Finally a relief from that abomination that Bethesda called Fallout3!
Click to expand...

This conversation pretty much is made up entirely by you, isn't it? Those of us who've played FO1, 2, 3, and New Vegas know FO3 was the weakest entry in the franchise.

In short, all these people who were and are still praising New Vegas and hating on Fallout 3 were never making judgments based on the games themselves, but only based on who made them.
Their "criticism" of Fallout 3 has absolutely no merit, it is based on blatant lies. They already had preconceived opinions about it before it was ever released; the moment Bethesda announced it was developing it. They will simply go to any length to discredit the company that took Fallout away from their precious Black Isle Studios.
Click to expand...

Black Isle was awesome, shame what Interplay did to them. Best developer they had. The criticism of FO3 is all justified, provided you got it to run for more than a few minutes anyway.

In fact head over to metacritic's user reviews of Fallout New Vegas, and you will see that most of the negative reviews are from people who think that Bethesda and not Obsidian made New Vegas. You will see comments like "I've lost all faith in Bethesda" and "Bethesda has done it again, now they've reached an all time low". It's almost funny.
Click to expand...

I don't usually read metacritic and I hang with a more knowledgable crowd, I suppose. Everyone I know knows full well that Obsidian made NV and Bethesda made FO3.

Here are some facts: Fallout 3 had far more detail in the world and looked like it was years in the making, whereas New Vegas looked like they copy and pasted the same sand texture everywhere and finished it in a week. It's an empty desert where you'll find very little interesting stuff except a shack or army outpost here and there where different soldiers say the exact same lines of dialogue.

The game has endlessly empty and dull deserts that you wouldn't see in Fallout 3, and it made walking to locations a complete drag. But some idiots mistake a lack of content and laziness on behalf of the developers as "that's what a wasteland is supposed to be like".
Click to expand...

Err, I think you must have played a different pair of games than I did. NV had more meaningful locations, quests, towns, etc, that all made you feel like there was actually a civilization in the ruins. Characters had back story to them, motivations, and your interactions(for a Bethesda style game) were very good. FO3 had a lot of map items, but all meaningless junk. No civilization, poor characters.


And you could clearly tell the writers and the game designers never actually talked to each other, since there were ideas that were put in dialogue but not implemented. For example you talk to a bartender about hiring prostitutes and then find that the prostitutes don't exist.

The voice acting is absolutely horrible. Bethesda's wasn't that good either, but the voices in New Vegas sounded like there was no director.
Click to expand...

Again, the writing was much better in NV than FO3. And I hired prostitutes several times, so I'm not sure which bartender you visited that didn't have the merchandise. Perhaps the game knew you were underage?


In Fallout 3 there was a sense of mystery and suspense, you wanted to know where your father went and what's going on. In New Vegas it's a lame revenge story, a predictable plot, and an anti-climactic ending.
And as for:
Click to expand...

No, there wasn't. You figured out where your father went in about 15 minutes, then the game crashed, and you started up again from a save game, replayed a bit, then did some hocus pokus and something magic happened with the water. You claim NV had a poor story but FO3 had a good story? You must be joking.


the thing that really makes NV stand out as clearly superior to FO3? The fact that it was actually stable and could run on a 64bit OS without crashing. FO3, under Vista & 7 64, C2D so consistently it was basically unplayable.

It's universally agreed upon that New Vegas had far more bugs and glitches than Fallout 3, even among fans of Obsidian.
Click to expand...

No, no its certainly not. There are still threads of people trying to get FO3 to run stable. NV had its share of glitches too though, its still running the notoriously unstable Gamebryo engine and most of the underlying code was done by Bethesda. I've had three of four configurations of PCs for my main desktop since FO3's release, and none of then could run it stable. Ended up having to play through it on a Dell Inspiron 531 I had as a test bed, Vista 32, 2GB of RAM, A64X2 4000, and a Radeon 4350.


I will give FO3 two props though, that were better than NV. Three Dog and Liberty Prime. If the fates smiled on you and FO3 was able to run, Liberty Prime's attack rampage was pretty awesome. And Three Dog, the radio disk jocky. As you worked through quests and effected the game world, he'd report your exploits. This made the player feel pretty awesome, or pretty evil, depending on the player. Mr. New Vegas only reported a few major exploits of the player's on the radio.


It'd be in the player's best interests if Bethesda went to work on Elder Scrolls 6 and handed Fallout 4 to Obsidian. Assuming Obsidian has the time and resources while working on their own Kickstarter funded Project Eternity.
 
I'm an old school Fallout fan and I have a few controversial opinions on the series.

I agree with grandos that Fallout 3 is clearly superior to New Vegas, and I hope Bethesda is developing Fallout 4 rather than Obsidian doing it.

But the more controversial opinion I have is that Fallout 2 kind of sucked.

Fallout 1 was so much better than 2 it isn't even funny.

I'm not saying 2 was a complete wash but it was full of too many stupid little juvenile pieces of humor and references to things... it broke any immersion. It felt like a TC campaign made for Fallout 1 by fans who were all 13 years old.

I actually enjoyed Fallout Tactics which I know a lot of people didn't.
 
Well said Bateluer. Not sure how you can think FO3 is clearly better. Must not of played much of New Vegas.
 
Last edited:
Bateluer said:
No . . . just no. NV had a better story, characters, more interactive game world, etc. But its more important feature, the thing that really makes NV stand out as clearly superior to FO3? The fact that it was actually stable and could run on a 64bit OS without crashing. FO3, under Vista & 7 64, C2D so consistently it was basically unplayable.

Lets all hope that Bethesda Softworks gives Fallout 4 to Obsidian so we get a game worth playing.
Click to expand...

FO3 is fine with the "dual core fix" that's why it crashes all the time.

I also liked FO3 better than NV, although in saying that i loved both games.
 
Bateluer said:
Wow, you're kinda all over the map here. Very rambling and disjointed. I'll try to translate it and set you straight. 🙂



Err, I think you must have played a different pair of games than I did. NV had more meaningful locations, quests, towns, etc, that all made you feel like there was actually a civilization in the ruins. Characters had back story to them, motivations, and your interactions(for a Bethesda style game) were very good. FO3 had a lot of map items, but all meaningless junk. No civilization, poor characters.
Click to expand...
NV was mostly desert and more desert and even more desert with few impassible areas ("you can't go there"). A few interesting places in-between but not much more. Course both games lacked any real civilization, mainly due to the nature of the game (rivet city,megaton vs vegas) FO3 was a world burned to ruins, NV felt more like just worn down, non-nuclear apocalyptic (mainly cause it didn't get nuked thanks to vega's defenses).
 
I like both games.

FO3 had a better sandbox experience for just wandering around, and good voice acting from Malcolm McDowell as the president and Three Dog. And yes, Liberty Prime was awesome.

FONV had a better main quest, better companions with their own good side quests (especially Cass and Veronica), and better stories for the vaults.

So, Bethesda for open worlds, Obsidian for stories and companions.
 
grandos_tabetos said:
Hopefully Bethesda.
Obsidian is the most overrated untalented development team in existence, they live off the blind and loyal old fanbase who swallow any garbage that's thrown at them and call it brilliant.
Fallout 3 was in fact superior to New Vegas in every way imaginable (except maybe NV's iron sights).
Click to expand...

Cool story.
 
I wouldn't care much about the devs. I just want them to stop using GameBryo and move on, go with UE3, UE4, CE3, Duna or heck even Source would do. I like the Fallout universe a lot but couldn't stand the constant per-hour crashing of Fallout 3 (nor Morrowind's and Oblivion's). Maybe Bethesda are suited, maybe Obsidian too... maybe Valve should give a try to open worlds or perhaps Crytek or Ubisoft could also give it a go... or even Gearbox why not. I just don't want GameBryo, please remove that thing from the gaming world and let history take care of it.
 
I agree about the engine...the dev isn't the problem, it's the engine. Maybe they'll give us something newer and much more stable.
 
Am I the only one that thoroughly enjoys both Fallout 3 and New Vegas? Everybody seems to pick one or the other but I'm just over here enjoying each games strengths.
 
DaveSimmons said:
I like both games.

FO3 had a better sandbox experience for just wandering around, and good voice acting from Malcolm McDowell as the president and Three Dog. And yes, Liberty Prime was awesome.

FONV had a better main quest, better companions with their own good side quests (especially Cass and Veronica), and better stories for the vaults.

So, Bethesda for open worlds, Obsidian for stories and companions.
Click to expand...

^This

cmdrdredd said:
I agree about the engine...the dev isn't the problem, it's the engine. Maybe they'll give us something newer and much more stable.
Click to expand...

As long as it's easily modable. I can see Crytech's engine, but Source D:
 
I heard that Obsidian were NOT going to be working on any more Fallout games due to the low review scores that New Vegas received. The contract they had with Bethesda was for them to make the game and have it be atleast an 88 on metacritic, but since the game only scored an 84 it is considered a dissapointment and not as good a performer as Fallout 3. So it will probably be the Fallout 3 team working on it. I assume that's the Skyrim team as well. Bethesda make what, 1 game every 2 years? They aren't exactly the most prolific studio.
 
futurefields said:
I heard that Obsidian were NOT going to be working on any more Fallout games due to the low review scores that New Vegas received. The contract they had with Bethesda was for them to make the game and have it be atleast an 88 on metacritic, but since the game only scored an 84 it is considered a dissapointment and not as good a performer as Fallout 3. So it will probably be the Fallout 3 team working on it. I assume that's the Skyrim team as well. Bethesda make what, 1 game every 2 years? They aren't exactly the most prolific studio.
Click to expand...

Low review scores?? They averaged 89.
 
futurefields said:
I heard that Obsidian were NOT going to be working on any more Fallout games due to the low review scores that New Vegas received. The contract they had with Bethesda was for them to make the game and have it be atleast an 88 on metacritic, but since the game only scored an 84 it is considered a dissapointment and not as good a performer as Fallout 3. So it will probably be the Fallout 3 team working on it. I assume that's the Skyrim team as well. Bethesda make what, 1 game every 2 years? They aren't exactly the most prolific studio.
Click to expand...

Whoah, didn't know they made contracts based on Metacritic scores.. Scores that can easily be changed by some fuckhead who owns an authority website.
 
DaveSimmons said:
I like both games.

FO3 had a better sandbox experience for just wandering around, and good voice acting from Malcolm McDowell as the president and Three Dog. And yes, Liberty Prime was awesome.

FONV had a better main quest, better companions with their own good side quests (especially Cass and Veronica), and better stories for the vaults.

So, Bethesda for open worlds, Obsidian for stories and companions.
Click to expand...

A reasonable opinion in a Fallout thread? Impossible!

Fallout 3 and NV are the two games I've put the most time into and I love them both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top